‘We don't want to Manage Poverty’: Community Groups Politicise Food Insecurity and Charitable Food Donations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Charitable assistance is a common response to food insecurity in many affluent countries. The coalition featured in this case study is explicitly concerned with social justice, mitigating the potential for charitable assistance to mask the extent of food insecurity, its root causes and its long-term consequences. The coalition structure has assisted community workers in transcending day-to-day routines, so as to reflect on the politics of food insecurity and institutionalised responses to this problem. Coalition members have defined food security as an objective whose achievement will entail comprehensive reform. One noteworthy outcome has been to recommend that member groups not redistribute a number of foodstuffs commonly donated by individuals and corporations. In grappling with a tension between responding to immediate needs for food and addressing the root causes of these needs, community workers have paid attention to public health.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.042 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".